• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul supported by 16 Massachusetts delegates, says campaign

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul had a busy weekend in the home state of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. And it seems to have yielded some success.


Paul national campaign chairman Jesse Benton told The Daily Caller that Paul supporters occupy 16 of 19 delegate slots filled in congressional district selection processes.


“They are bound to Romney but support Ron,” said Benton. The effect of this coup isn’t immediately clear.

Source: The Daily Caller


This is what I was wanting to see. I wouldn't be surprised to if Paul supporters repeat this action in other primary states where the caucus/convention process gets less attention. Being able to get the bulk of the delegates suggests they would be able to dominate that state convention, which could lead to some interesting developments.
 
Source: The Daily Caller


This is what I was wanting to see. I wouldn't be surprised to if Paul supporters repeat this action in other primary states where the caucus/convention process gets less attention. Being able to get the bulk of the delegates suggests they would be able to dominate that state convention, which could lead to some interesting developments.


heh that and a buck will get him a cup of coffee
 
I saw the title of this thread that said "Ron Paul supported by 16......."

and figured the next two words would be "year olds".
 
And he is still irrelevant. Romney still has 10 times the delegates he does. Paul lost, again. Accept it.
 
And he is still irrelevant. Romney still has 10 times the delegates he does. Paul lost, again. Accept it.

Sure, Paul grabbing the actual national delegates in Massachusetts, where Romney was governor and where he won the primary race, is clearly not indicative of anything. :roll:
 
they are bound to Romney, so they are Romney delegates.

I wanted a brokered convention more then anything, but it isn't happening.
 
they are bound to Romney, so they are Romney delegates.

I wanted a brokered convention more then anything, but it isn't happening.

Technically, they can vote to unbind the delegates at the state or national convention. ;)
 
Technically, they can vote to unbind the delegates at the state or national convention. ;)



They, as in the voters of the state. If we had that support, they wouldn't be Romney delegates.
 
Technically, they can vote to unbind the delegates at the state or national convention. ;)

So why do you want to take the vote away from the people? Just because they are too smart to actually vote for Paul?
 
So why do you want to take the vote away from the people? Just because they are too smart to actually vote for Paul?

Paul/his supporters like to wrap themselves in the mantle of "liberty." Yet, when it comes to the ultimate demonstration of liberty in the political arena, where people freely cast the ballots for the candidate of their choice, undemocratic notions of undoing the will of the people are not outright rejected. That there's no discomfort with the notion of a handful of delegates going rogue and ignoring the will of the people they are supposed to represent when acting as delegates contradicts the message of liberty. The reality is that Paul could not win democratic statewide primary contests for President, much less a national election, where free choice prevails, as his positions have overly narrow appeal. Respect for liberty and reverence for representative government requires that the delegates cast their votes to reflect the will of Massachusetts's primary voters, barring exceptional circumstances, none of which exist.
 
Paul/his supporters like to wrap themselves in the mantle of "liberty." Yet, when it comes to the ultimate demonstration of liberty in the political arena, where people freely cast the ballots for the candidate of their choice, undemocratic notions of undoing the will of the people are not outright rejected. That there's no discomfort with the notion of a handful of delegates going rogue and ignoring the will of the people they are supposed to represent when acting as delegates contradicts the message of liberty. The reality is that Paul could not win democratic statewide primary contests for President, much less a national election, where free choice prevails, as his positions have overly narrow appeal. Respect for liberty and reverence for representative government requires that the delegates cast their votes to reflect the will of Massachusetts's primary voters, barring exceptional circumstances, none of which exist.
You're conflating freedom and democracy. They're hardly the same thing. If we chose a marriage partner for everyone based on a majority vote, we'd be a democratic society, but hardly a free one. If the will of "the People" is to strip from me my freedom, then "the People" can go to hell. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Paul/his supporters like to wrap themselves in the mantle of "liberty." Yet, when it comes to the ultimate demonstration of liberty in the political arena, where people freely cast the ballots for the candidate of their choice, undemocratic notions of undoing the will of the people are not outright rejected. That there's no discomfort with the notion of a handful of delegates going rogue and ignoring the will of the people they are supposed to represent when acting as delegates contradicts the message of liberty. The reality is that Paul could not win democratic statewide primary contests for President, much less a national election, where free choice prevails, as his positions have overly narrow appeal. Respect for liberty and reverence for representative government requires that the delegates cast their votes to reflect the will of Massachusetts's primary voters, barring exceptional circumstances, none of which exist.

Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy. I tend to agree with them in this regard.
 
They, as in the voters of the state. If we had that support, they wouldn't be Romney delegates.

No, they can be unbound at the convention. There is no law that actually requires they vote for a certain candidate. It is determined by the rules, which are determined at the convention. In 2008 the RNC actually passed a rule saying it did not recognize any binding of delegates by state governments.

So why do you want to take the vote away from the people? Just because they are too smart to actually vote for Paul?

People were free to vote at the caucuses and influence the actual delegate selection. Were Romney's supporters sufficiently informed and motivated this wouldn't even be a discussion, but they weren't and lost the vote. Should Paul supporters unbind the delegates so that Romney will actually lose Massachusetts, it is a failing of his campaign and his supporters.

Paul/his supporters like to wrap themselves in the mantle of "liberty." Yet, when it comes to the ultimate demonstration of liberty in the political arena, where people freely cast the ballots for the candidate of their choice, undemocratic notions of undoing the will of the people are not outright rejected. That there's no discomfort with the notion of a handful of delegates going rogue and ignoring the will of the people they are supposed to represent when acting as delegates contradicts the message of liberty. The reality is that Paul could not win democratic statewide primary contests for President, much less a national election, where free choice prevails, as his positions have overly narrow appeal. Respect for liberty and reverence for representative government requires that the delegates cast their votes to reflect the will of Massachusetts's primary voters, barring exceptional circumstances, none of which exist.

I am not going to re-argue that absurd claim about Paul's electability and the double-barreled effort by both sides of the political aisle to suppress the Paul vote since you are quite immune to basic facts and logic on this subject. Were the will of the people truly being respected than a quarter of the delegates at the Republican convention would support legalizing marijuana, as a quarter of self-identified Republicans support such a measure. However, that is not how the system works and barring the prospect of Paul getting enough delegates to have the view fairly represented, that would likely not be allowed. In several areas where Paul got a significant portion of the vote, the Republican establishment railroaded the process to keep Paul from getting delegates. North Dakota saw Romney net the most delegates, even though in the actual vote he came behind Ron Paul who only got two delegates.

Were it not for the establishment machinations at suppressing Paul votes in blatant abuse of the process and manipulation of the voting public I would be opposed to this kind of activity, but it just isn't the case. Since the establishment is set on blocking the democratic process, there is no reason why Paul's supporters should act like there is a democratic process.
 
I am not going to re-argue that absurd claim about Paul's electability and the double-barreled effort by both sides of the political aisle to suppress the Paul vote since you are quite immune to basic facts and logic on this subject.

Logically speaking, doesn't the fact that he is opposed by both parties indicate that he isn't electable due to the nature very of our system?
 
Logically speaking, doesn't the fact that he is opposed by both parties indicate that he isn't electable due to the nature very of our system?

Not supressing the vote means the vote that did happen is supressed. That's quality logic isn't it?
 
Sure, Paul grabbing the actual national delegates in Massachusetts, where Romney was governor and where he won the primary race, is clearly not indicative of anything. :roll:

What it indicates is a very zealous minority who works their tail off for him.. Why doesn't Ron run as an independent? Why isn't he on the Libertarian ticket? What do you think he can do with those delegates you find so significant?
 
You're conflating freedom and democracy. They're hardly the same thing. If we chose a marriage partner for everyone based on a majority vote, we'd be a democratic society, but hardly a free one. If the will of "the People" is to strip from me my freedom, then "the People" can go to hell. :shrug:

I'm referring to "representative government" (the form devised in the U.S. Constitution), not a pure democracy. The Founders devised the republican form of government to help safeguard individual freedom. One can reference the Federalist Papers for more detailed commentary by Jay, Hamilton, and Madison. Like Jay, Hamilton, and Madison, I have sufficient confidence in the nation's people and in the constitutional framework they devised to help sustain individual liberty. On the contrary, attempts by individuals to substitute their preferences for the free choice of the electorate runs counter to the Founders' ideals. The U.S. remains a free society. It has not been transformed into an authoritarian or totalitarian state nor is there any reasonble prospect of such an outcome anytime soon.
 
I am not going to re-argue that absurd claim about Paul's electability...

You don't have to. The outcome of the electoral process speaks for itself. At last word, Ron Paul is not the presumptive GOP nominee, nor is there any prospect of his becoming the nominee.
 
Technically, they can vote to unbind the delegates at the state or national convention. ;)

right... and a major party caucus where the vote of the people is overturned by the actions of behind the scenes caucus goers will go over on the American public real well... :roll:
 
right... and a major party caucus where the vote of the people is overturned by the actions of behind the scenes caucus goers will go over on the American public real well... :roll:

this has already happened. As the person you are responding to pointed out, Romney is getting more delegates then his popular vote count would warrant in some states.

If Romney can do this in some states, why can't Paul?
 
You don't have to. The outcome of the electoral process speaks for itself. At last word, Ron Paul is not the presumptive GOP nominee, nor is there any prospect of his becoming the nominee.

absolutes are always stupid. :-0

there is some prospect of his becoming the nominee. One such prospect would revolve already the health of the presumptive nominee going south in short order.

hell, if the Ron Paul supporters are as crazy as some of you accuse them of being, it wouldn't even be that far out their of a possibility
 
there is some prospect of his becoming the nominee...

I was speaking about practical prospects not theoretical ones. To be clear, Ron Paul has an infinitesimal probability of somehow winning the GOP nomination. For all practical intents and purposes, the probability is close to zero.

One such prospect would revolve already the health of the presumptive nominee going south in short order.

That would not make Ron Paul a leading candidate for the GOP nomination. Far more likely, the Party would coalesce around one of the other leading contenders e.g., Rick Santorum, or choose someone who wasn't involved in the race e.g., Chris Christie, who has garnered some interest despite his not running nor expressing interest in running. IMO, the calculus concerning Ron Paul's prospects would be essentially the same, even if Governor Romney had to step aside for some reason.
 
Last edited:
I was speaking about practical prospects not theoretical ones. To be clear, Ron Paul has an infinitesimal probability of somehow winning the GOP nomination. For all practical intents and purposes, the probability is close to zero.

your smug reply was stated rather definitively, and was also wrong.

That would not make Ron Paul a leading candidate for the GOP nomination. Far more likely, the Party would coalesce around one of the other leading contenders

Yes, the party would do their best to try to rally around the others, and do everything in their power to diminish the sizable delegates that would be unbound and quite possibly in a majority favor of Ron Paul.
 
your smug reply was stated rather definitively, and was also wrong.

His near zero probability of gaining the nomination is a realistic appraisal, even if it runs counter to the idealized scenario of his somehow gaining the nomination that some of his supporters maintain. Ron Paul's prospects are infinitesimal. Already, there is a presumptive nominee, and Ron Paul is not the presumptive nominee. When the GOP Convention concludes on August 30, that outcome will be final.
 
Logically speaking, doesn't the fact that he is opposed by both parties indicate that he isn't electable due to the nature very of our system?

One could certainly make the argument that those without the support of at least some of the elites are probably not electable, but that makes all the cries about democracy a tad misplaced.

What it indicates is a very zealous minority who works their tail off for him.. Why doesn't Ron run as an independent? Why isn't he on the Libertarian ticket? What do you think he can do with those delegates you find so significant?

It is all about influence. Taking control of the party is one thing, even if it doesn't allow for Paul to be the nominee.

Not supressing the vote means the vote that did happen is supressed. That's quality logic isn't it?

Not sure what the hell you are even trying to claim I said, but I am pretty damn sure you are way off base regardless.

right... and a major party caucus where the vote of the people is overturned by the actions of behind the scenes caucus goers will go over on the American public real well... :roll:

It depends all on how it plays out. Paul has enough delegates garnered through the normal caucus process to give his claim as a major candidate credibility, technically his popular vote total at this point is a quarter of Romney's and just about 40% of Santorum's. Were he to only do this in enough places to deny Romney the necessary majority and then win the nomination in a brokered convention scenario it would not create quite the same firestorm. In many ways the media have laid the groundwork for that being accepted more readily. Talk of a brokered convention has been repeated in several places and the coalescing of the anti-Romney camp has been subject to much speculation.

There are, of course, ways Paul supporters can undo the binding without creating hostility. An obvious way would be to go to the conventions of winner-take-all states and then put forward a proportional delegate slate. In a state such as Virginia this would actually net Paul a hefty supply of delegates, in general it could be enough on its own to deny Romney his majority, and no talk of "denying the people their vote" could be uttered as it would reflect their vote more accurately.
 
Back
Top Bottom